Skip to content
#621
Auto-translated
Nargott
All the same principles apply when using resurrection. It doesn't reduce losses to 0, but only halves them. That is, large losses still remain large.
Essentially, resurrection provides the opportunity to defeat stronger neutral creatures earlier with the same losses. For example, defeating 100 hypothetical Hydras without resurrection may be equivalent in terms of losses to defeating 120 hypothetical Hydras with resurrection.
In theory, it might work somehow, but increasing the attack power will shift the "balance of power" in its favor.
Nargott

Plus, even if we accept this point of view, developing in the Castle is already a deliberately chosen strategy, so why should it fit all decisions?
It shouldn't be the only advantageous option (this is what I'm writing about).
Nargott

In the first month, the middle, and sometimes even the end of the game is often determined. The obvious endgame is when everything is built, and there is nowhere else to develop, and you simply accumulate troops (the most tedious part).
So, from these words, it turns out that with this style of play, things like obtaining artifacts, leveling up the hero (fully developed), and moving around the map (at least when playing against more than one opponent) are no longer noticeable? Are these things done "on autopilot"? Is only the factor of building up the Castle important?
(And, apparently, what I listed results from the ease of clearing the map. And the tactics of moving around it disappear.)

Statistics

Welcome our newest member: dodoD0D0